You have access to this content through your organization’s enterprise subscription to the Aviation Week Intelligence Network (AWIN). Would you like to go there now? Your choice will be remembered until you close your browser.

Editorial: Pentagon Must Better Explain Plans For Next Bomber

The U.S. Air Force is poised to announce its selection of a contractor to build a new stealthy bomber to be first fielded in the mid-2020s. The program ultimately could cost $80 billion or more. Obviously, much is at stake for the two competitors—Northrop Grumman and a Boeing-Lockheed Martin team—and their suppliers. But Defense Department credibility is at stake, too.
The department, and the Air Force in particular, have a less-than-sterling record of developing large weapons ...

REGISTER FOR FREE ACCESS (Valid Email Required)

Register now for free access to "Editorial: Pentagon Must Better Explain Plans For Next Bomber" and other premium content selected daily by our editors. Your free registration will also allow you to comment on any article posted to Aviationweek.com.

Current magazine subscribers: digital access to articles associated with your subscription are now included at no added charge to you. Simply use your subscriber email to log in to your account (or contact us for assistance in updating your account).

Discuss this Article 49

Here it goes again. An Aviation Week "editorial" that, however much it is couched in grand terms, is really a hissy fit because Bill Sweetman feels that the Air Force should be allowing him to determine what kind of bomber it builds.

Another article that just regurgitates what has already been said a dozen times before. Nothing new. Nothing surprising. Nothing really to say, but let's just cut-and-paste some sentences together and put it out again.

The bomber should have 3 engines, 2 turbofans and a turbojet.
The turbojet would have 4 cascaded centrifugal compressors with 4:1 pressure ratio each. 4x4x4x4 = 256:1 pressure ratio for extreme altitude propulsion. The turbofans would provide take-off and climb power, and the turbo jet would chime in climbing through 25,000 feet.

If you mean diplomacy as it's normally done - enriching corrupt politicians and dictators - we've tried that with limited effectiveness. How many billions of our foreign aid ends up in secret bank accounts?

"You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word alone."
- Al Capone

You will always have to deal with the zealots. Combining civil military operations (COM) with surgical strike capability speeds culmination and strengthens the Country Embassy - joint warfighter team. An effective 1-2 punch.

ZEALOT IS NOT, REPEAT, NOT DEFINED AS ANYBODY WHO DOESN'T LIKE THE us OR us INTERESTS' PLANS FOR HIS LIFE AND COUNTRY. THIS NICE TEAM IS POISED FOR DEALING WITH SUBORDINATES.Diplomacy is indeed a joke (no matter how much you pay, somebody will hate yopu and nobody is a surest enemy than the ungrateful recipient of goodwill. This does not change the fact that the whole concept is one of domination. And, if I remember right, any nuclear capability of this bomber will violate the treaty of non-proliferation of nukes. you know, the one saying that other countries are NOT to get nukes if the ones already havong them step away from them? Yes, THAT treaty, the one Iran supposedly -and Israel openly- violate.

I have a few questions.
1 How do they propose to build a stealth bomber for 25% of the cost of the B2 (500 M vs 2 B per plane) ?
2 Why do we NEED it ? Someone correct me here, but AFAIK, it's only the US and the Russians who have a strategic bomber fleet, and the Russians are still using Tu-95 propellor driven bombers and a small number of Tu-160, kind of like the B1.
3 If there is this burning need to spend money like water, then why not spend it on something that's really pie in the sky but might have long term benefits, like artificial gravity and inertial damping ?

1. The B-2 contract was initially set at 133 airframes. Due to the constant changing of the mission requirements and the cutting back of the original production contract to just 21 airframes, the bulk of the R&D monies spent had to be amortized over just 21 airframes versus 133.

2. In the new SALT Treaty, if a new "Bomber" has an unrefueled range under 6,000 nm (not sure of the exact distance but the LSR-B is under that threshold), it is not considered a strategic asset and is not covered under the new treaty. Right now we are flying B-52Hs that were last off the production line in 1963, the B-1 is a 70s design and the B-2A Spirit has been operational for a bit over 25 years. Things get old and break and need replacing on a semi regular basis.

3. As a taxpayer for most of my 70 years, I would much rather it be spent on military procurement (excluding the F-35 procurement disaster) than pissed away on so many of this countries wasted social programs. Defense of this nation is one of the few requirements that are specifically stated in our Constitution.

The military wants money spent on the military.
The poor wants money spent on the poor.
Does the Constitution prohibit money from being spent on the poor?
The military's job is to kill people, the ultimate form of terrorism.

1) The $2 billion price for the B2 was based on because the Development cost was $40 billion, each bomber cost $2 billion. You can't compare this to the cost per bomber estimate of the new bomber and Aviation Week should know that. The production cost of addition B2s once production was rolling was about $500 million. Somehow I doubt they can build a new bomber for anywhere close to that. Just look at the true cost of the F22 and F35 for comparison if you add production costs.

What an adorably naive op-ed piece. The instant Congress gets their grubby little mitts on it (and they most certainly will: they write the checks!) the price at least doubles. The Pentagon wants their hopes and dreams all on the table as an inoculation attempt. They took all the blame for Congress' F-35 debacle, they're not stupid.

OLD, can you spell "old" as in B-52 and B-1 and maybe the B-2; these are why the B-3 "young" should be built. I like the "Push" on the tanker so how about a similar "fixed price" and a "fixed delivery date"; Deliver it or Eat it. Next, the second bidder should be pressed to "fix-up" their bid (at the time of the award) to be ready "IF" the winner eats their contract. When and what; which day does the last B-52 retire and goes into mothballs. Since we do more with less; the existing squadrons are re-trained to support the new B-3. Next, what day does the last B-1 retire and goes into mothballs. All this is in the contract from DoD and not the Air Force. Congress gets to ratify and fund the contract but congressional sabotage at later dates, leads to DoD eating the contract. ....back in the real world....politicians today announce.... :)

Totally wrong,and just highlights your bias. Tens of millions by the Nazis. Tens of millions by the Russians. Tens of millions by the Chinese. The list is long, but the US military don't even come close.

Reminds me of an old press release from Netherlands, which I ran across today.
The JSF emerged as the best out of a new evaluation of potential replacements for the air force’s ageing F16s which had been ordered by parliament, [junior defence minister Jack] de Vries said. In terms of quality the F-35 ‘is considerably better’ than the others. It was also cheaper and the defence ministry expected it to be cheaper to maintain, he said.

"The goals for LRSB include a $550 million flyaway cost, a far cry from the $2 billion per copy for the last U.S. bomber, the B-2" --The $2 billion price for the B2 was based on the fallacy that because the Development cost was $40 billion, each bomber cost $2 billion to build. As production was winding down, I believe NorGrum submitted a request for contract to build addition bombers for about $500 million each.

$500 million is a lot of moolar to spend on an aeroplane capable of knocking over mud huts and humvee's. How much was spent on the Iraq War and the 5th, for the British Afghan wars. Both of which I believe the US and the UK lost. Maybe $80 billion spent on diplomacy would be a bargain. Oops I forgot we have to keep the Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman shareholders happy.

Centrifugal compressors are smaller. lighter, less expensive and more durable than axial flow compressors with the same pressure ratio. The 4 spools of the turbojet engine counter-rotate so that there is no gyroscopic effect. The turbojet engine would be operated at 70% RPM (34% power) at low altitude to overcome its own drag. The turbojet engine would "go with throttle-up" climbing through 25,000 feet, above which the engine would not be damaged by the 256:1 pressure ratio.

Most turboprop engines already have centrifugal compressors, they work well for smaller turboprop type engines such as a PT6 and they also compress the engine length. However, the idea of an aerospace company to sink billions into a fanciful "centrifugal" compressed turbojet - well, there is a reason they did not sink billions into it yet! Cause she won' work...

No doubt that defence programs like this keep 1000’s employed and bring-in some innovation to the way we can fly and deploy rarely rather never used ammunition. I think this 80 billion will be well spent on the development of an obvious futuristic product; a multi-use disc shaped craft which takes off vertically and takes you upto the edge of space in minutes and sits there indefinitely (as long as the fuel allows it) or reach any target on earth within a few hours. Definitely by 2020 you will see a prototype of it and these bombers will be obsolete in no time. This craft can be as small as a drone and as big as an Olympic size stadium or even bigger. This electrically powered craft will ultimately be solar or nuclear powered to stay at the edge of space indefinitely. This craft with a detachable payload has capability to stay and hover over any location on earth, be it is in the middle of an ocean or a desert or a mountain range or a city. This craft can be used to deploy 1000’s of troops or workers along-with their heavy equipment to any location within a few hours. Due to its capacity to stay indefinitely at one location, depending on its payload, it can be used as a low stationary satellite (for internet wi-fi, cell phones, tv/radio broadcasting etc.), fighting forest fires, disaster relief, space tourism, launch pad for space rockets, telescopes to explore space, monitor weather or activities or even persons on earth, construction, cargo and hundreds of more type of activities. Ultimately it will replace the existing passenger aircrafts and end up as flying cars. This craft is going to be the next revolution, like internet of modern times and a big portion of these defence spending will become worthless.

All these comments and not a single comment about maintaining the industrial base. If you need a new bomber you can't advertise in comic book back pages for hired help. Better to keep a crew working on it almost continually. Welfare is a black hole with infinite appetite. Best not to subsidize it at the expense of national security.

Re-starting the F-22 might be a good idea if the new systems/missions don't drive the price per copy to high. Also the production numbers have to be made to keep the price per copy down. The new bomber should replace the B-52 and B-1 but not have the capability of the B-2 to reduce costs. More B-2s should be built! Production was 112 aircraft short! B-21 should be a smart bomb and cruise missile platform. Carpet bombing is still highly effective! We won WW!! with a lot of collateral damage, don't run away from it do it when needed! All 4th/5th gen aircraft should be able to communicate with the B-21! Also be able to function in a non-gps environment. 12 hour missions should be the training norm in simulators. 3 4hr missions should be flown to tweek simulator results. This should be a bomb truck not an oversized F-22 or F-35.

In the simplest terms, airlines need to maximize the value of their aircraft by increasing profits from time in the air while decreasing the costs and time on the ground. Efficient aircraft ground operations are fundamental to meeting customer service expectations...More

Aerospace and defense companies are being confronted by the twin challenges of unprecedented competitive pressure as well as understandably demanding customers who are seeking greater accountability on program performance....More

Additive manufacturing gives the aerospace industry better solutions for making UAVs, commercial aircraft and space vehicles stronger, lighter and more economical, with increased production efficiency....More